| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/377872 |
| Subject | Direct Taxation |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Oct-28-1992 |
| Case Number | I.T.R.C. No. 92 of 1992 |
| Judge | K. Shivashankar Bhat and;R. Ramakrishna, JJ. |
| Reported in | (1992)109CTR(Kar)250; [1994]205ITR461(KAR); [1994]205ITR461(Karn) |
| Acts | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28 and 32A |
| Appellant | Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Respondent | Mysore Minerals Ltd. |
| Appellant Advocate | Deokinandan, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | K.M.L. Majele, Adv. |
Excerpt:
- essential commodities act, 1955 [c.a. no. 10/1955] -- public distribution system (control order) 1992: [k.l. manjunath, j] petitioner, dealer of fair price depot order of deputy commissioner to withdraw the cards assigned to the petitioners shop - grievance against the petitioner is that some of the villagers are not willing to purchase ration from the petitioners shop as the petitioner belongs to schedule caste challenge as to legality of the action initiated by the deputy commissioner held, if some of the villagers are not willing to draw the ration from the petitioners shop on account of the fact that the petitioner belongs to schedule caste, the same cannot be a ground for the deputy commissioner to pass the impugned order. the deputy commissioner cannot dance to the tune of the cardholders as long as the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of essential commodities act, 1955 or the public distribution system (control order) 1922. the food grains are supplied under the essential commodities act by the government to give certain facilities to the privileged class. such privileged class cannot dictate terms to the government or any officer as long as the person who has been granted authorisation has not committed any illegality or irregularity or has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the licence granted to such authorised person.k. shivashankar bhat, j. 1. the question referred under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 reads thus : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that extraction of granite from a quarry and cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them, was one of manufacture or production of an article or thing, to be entitled to investment allowance under section 32a ?' 2. the principle applicable is governed by the ratio of the decision in shankar construction co. v. cit : [1991]189itr463(kar) . in fact, in another case, this court has already considered the applicability of the principle to the case of extraction of granite. 3. following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue.
Judgment:K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.
1. The question referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 reads thus :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that extraction of granite from a quarry and cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them, was one of manufacture or production of an article or thing, to be entitled to investment allowance under section 32A ?'
2. The principle applicable is governed by the ratio of the decision in Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT : [1991]189ITR463(KAR) . In fact, in another case, this court has already considered the applicability of the principle to the case of extraction of granite.
3. Following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.